A long rambling converstation with my South African flatmate and my American flatmate yielded an interesting thought :
To restrict the 'allowed' usage of the N-word to Black people negates the attempt to take the negative meaning away and "take it back" into an empowerment sense.
By saying, "Yes this word is still bad if you, anyone who isn't me, uses it, but it's ok if I use it because then it has a different meaning," still maintains that old definition, still connects it strongly to that word. For a word to gain a new meaning, it must be whole heartedly accepted as having that new meaning, which includes letting whomever wants to express that sentiment use that word to do so.
Sure, if a member of the KKK uses it, they're probably going for that whole bad definition. But if the word is being re-defined, why then can't an ally to the cause also use it, in order to bring more popularity to the positive, empowering definition?
For example, the word 'queer' I would argue can be used by anyone sympathetic to the cause of gay rights, or about groups, events, etc rallying around the issue. The word can now start to mean something positive, because that new meaning can become accepted.
The shoud of shock that covers the N-word continues to give power to the minority of the population that want to use it to hurt another group of people, and with everyone continuing to act as if the word has such extreme power, it continues to do so.
And, just by way of comparison, a word with similar connotation in South Africa simply is not used by anyone appaprently.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment